Man can’t be denied divorce for not reacting to wife’s affair

A man is generally expected to bring the house down after learning about his wife’s extra-marital affair. However, if his reaction is not dramatic enough, that does not mean he will lose his right to get a divorce on grounds of adultery. So says a new judgment from the Bombay high court.

Khar-resident Venkat had married Padma on June 2, 1991. A son was born to them in 1992. However, Venkat, a Hindu priest by profession, suspected that Padma was having an affair with her uncle Raju and confronted her. He also said that once, when she had assumed that he was asleep, he had walked in and caught her in a compromising position with Raju.

Padma, he contended, had confessed to the relationship in front of her parents. So in 1996, Venkat asked her to leave his house.
In the family court, however, Padma refuted allegations of adultery and sought restitution of her conjugal rights with Venkat. In a counter-claim petition, Venkat had sought divorce alleging adultery and cruelty.

To this, Padma, in her reply, had said that she was courteous to Raju as he was a relative, and that did not mean she was having an affair with him. She added that Raju frequented their home as he was a distant cousin of Venkat’s as well. At the time of deposition in court, however, she flatly refused to recognise Raju.   

In 2002, the family court decided against Venkat, holding that the allegations of cruelty or adultery were not substantiated. It held that not cooking properly and not giving a bath to their child do not amount to cruelty. The court also discarded the evidence of Venkat’s witnesses — his land-lord and a social worker who was present when Padma and Raju had confessed to their relationship.

Also, the court noted that in May 1996, even when he had seen Padma returning from Raju’s room at 2 in the morning with her blouse buttons open, Venkat had not raised a hue and cry about it. The court felt that Venkat would have reacted strongly if the allegations were true.

Although the high court agreed with the family court that cruelty had not been proved in this case, they felt that Venkat had a strong case for adultery. Justice AM Khanwilkar and justice AA Sayed wrote in their order, “The fact that the appellant (Venkat) did not react aggressively or take any stern action by itself does not affect the truthfulness of his evidence. The fact that the incident had occurred is corroborated by the admission given by the respondent (Padma) as well as the co-respondent (Raju).”

Also, the inconsistency in Padma’s written statement, which accepted that Raju frequented their house but refused to identify him in court, punctured her case. “This was the easiest manner in which she has successfully avoided any further questions which could confront her about her adulterous relationship,” the court held.

“Merely because the appellant did not react provocatively or aggressively after the incident, that does not mean that the incident had not taken place. If the incident had not taken place, there was no reason why the appellant would have refused to cohabit with the respondent,” the judges held and granted a divorce to Venkat 14 years after he had separated from his wife.
* (Names changed to protect identities)